Hypotheticals to prove a point

[livinglegend]

Anyone with education would know that you cant use hypotheticals to prove your point. By using that, you re showing your opponent that you dont have any good point to make and that you have lost.

[chazzy]

Shutup and change your avy

[livinglegend]

Shutup and change your avy

Lebron > Kobe

[SilkkTheShocker]

Shutup and change your avy
Lebron >>>> Kobe.


Let it go

[nathanjizzle]

dmavs41 has this specific complex. every argument he makes is hypothetical

[livinglegend]

Lebron >>>> Kobe.


Let it go
:oldlol: :oldlol:

[nathanjizzle]

Lebron >>>> Kobe.


Let it go

thats hypothetical.

in reality kobe has 5 championships and lebron has 1.5

[livinglegend]

dmavs41 has this specific complex. every argument he makes is hypothetical

i know and he always knows what would have happened:lol

[chazzy]

Lebron >>>> Kobe.


Let it go
Cavs vs who in the finals?

[SilkkTheShocker]

thats hypothetical.

in reality kobe has 5 championships and lebron has 1.5
In reality I will be waking up to a nice house, luxury vehicle, and in a great part of town. You will be deep frying egg rolls in some s.hithole back alley restaurant

[imdaman99]

thats hypothetical.

in reality kobe has 5 championships and lebron has 1.5
Lol branstans ethered in their own thread about hypotheticals :roll:

[livinglegend]

Lol branstans ethered in their own thread about hypotheticals :roll:

explain your point.
and i m not a lebron stan.

[nathanjizzle]

In reality I will be waking up to a nice house, luxury vehicle, and in a great part of town. You will be deep frying egg rolls in some s.hithole back alley restaurant

wow, what a pathetic desperate display. yeah, you go ahead and believe that is reality if it makes you feel better.

[dc_chilling]

Anyone with education would know that you cant use hypotheticals to prove your point. By using that, you re showing your opponent that you dont have any good point to make and that you have lost.

These are 99% of the arguments on this forum. Arguments based on nothing that can't be disputed.

I've come to expect something like: "If MJ was Wilts height and played baseball at the same time as Babe Ruth, he wouldn't have struggled in the minor leagues."

My favorite one from today is: "If prime Kobe played in the East against a 44 win team he would average 60" or something along those lines.

Hypothetical's have evolved to include time travel, conference switches, and completely erasing players past history.

I love it. :applause: :applause:

[livinglegend]

These are 99% of the arguments on this forum. Arguments based on nothing that can't be disputed.

I've come to expect something like: "If MJ was Wilts height and played baseball at the same time as Babe Ruth, he wouldn't have struggled in the minor leagues."

My favorite one from today is: "If prime Kobe played in the East against a 44 win team he would average 60" or something along those lines.

Hypothetical's have evolved to include time travel, conference switches, and completely erasing players past history.

I love it. :applause: :applause:

very true

[DMAVS41]

dmavs41 has this specific complex. every argument he makes is hypothetical

If you are going to compare players...you have to, on some level, create hypotheticals...

Especially when so much importance is put on winning/rings...

It is absolutely absurd to compare Duncan and KG in terms of their careers without mentioning the absurdly different circumstances between the Spurs and Wolves

It is the basis of debate, argument, and discussion...

If we didn't talk about hypotheticals in some form or another...then there would be no debate...

But I've always actually been for discussing things that actually happen on the court and valuing how well a player plays above all, but the truth is very few do that.

For example, nobody is going to care ultimately that Durant had a stretch in round 1 that was utter dog shit...why? Because his team won. Yet if you actually compared that to other players in certain situations...Durant simply was just as bad, if not worse.

He got the biggest bailout game a superstar has ever gotten arguably in game 4.

So because Reggie Jackson went nuts...that makes his series better than Kobe's 04 finals or Dirk's 07 playoffs...etc?

Well, perhaps, but without talking about hypothetical situations...it's pretty unfair. And that is the problem without using them on some level...you just give too many teams/players passes for playing like shit in key moments/series when competition level and help aren't ever factored in.

Like...we really have to ignore that the Heat are playing cupcake after cupcake in the East the last 3 years now? Come on...

[livinglegend]

If you are going to compare players...you have to, on some level, create hypotheticals...

Especially when so much importance is put on winning/rings...

It is absolutely absurd to compare Duncan and KG in terms of their careers without mentioning the absurdly different circumstances between the Spurs and Wolves

It is the basis of debate, argument, and discussion...

If we didn't talk about hypotheticals in some form or another...then there would be no debate...

But I've always actually been for discussing things that actually happen on the court and valuing how well a player plays above all, but the truth is very few do that.

For example, nobody is going to care ultimately that Durant had a stretch in round 1 that was utter dog shit...why? Because his team won. Yet if you actually compared that to other players in certain situations...Durant simply was just as bad, if not worse.

He got the biggest bailout game a superstar has ever gotten arguably in game 4.

So because Reggie Jackson went nuts...that makes his series better than Kobe's 04 finals or Dirk's 07 playoffs...etc?

Well, perhaps, but without talking about hypothetical situations...it's pretty unfair. And that is the problem without using them on some level...you just give too many teams/players passes for playing like shit in key moments/series when competition level and help aren't ever factored in.

Like...we really have to ignore that the Heat are playing cupcake after cupcake in the East the last 3 years now? Come on...

The example that you mentioned with Durant, Kobe and Dirk is not a hypothetical situation. It s just analysing what happened to those 3 players in 3 different situations.
Durant played bad, that s a fact.

[DMAVS41]

The example that you mentioned with Durant, Kobe and Dirk is not a hypothetical situation. It s just analysing what happened to those 3 players in 3 different situations.
Durant played bad, that s a fact.

Yes, I know that...

But Durant's play will never be compared to those guys because his team won the series.

You won't ever see Durant's Memphis series 3 game stretch brought up...and yet you see Kobe and Dirk brought up all the time for 04 and 07 respectively.

In fact, that is literally all that is ever mentioned about Kobe and Dirk these days on here it seems.

And you have to start getting into whether or not Durant could have won a game going 5-21 like he did in game 4 in their place in those series (as that was the difference in the series)

So you compare hypothetical situations. Is there evidence to support that Durant would win playing like that, for example, in place of Dirk or Kobe.

Well, you could then look at that series and see how the Mavs did when Dirk played a similar game. And he did...in game 1 Dirk went for 14/12/4 on 36% TS and had 2 turnovers. The Mavs lost by 12.

Kobe had a 20/0/2 39% TS and had 3 turnovers. The Lakers lost by 8.

Durant went for 15/13/4 32% TS and had 5 turnovers. The Thunder won by 3.


This is why, on some level, hypotheticals must be used.

I totally agree that we should evaluate how players actually play when comparing them because so much goes into winning/losing...however, nobody does that. We see ring counts and records thrown about constantly.

And that is not to say that winning shouldn't be factored in...it absolutely should. But then it gets very hard to compare players without discussing hypotheticals on some level between teams or players.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Using the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is this board's biggest problem.

When you lose, quit. Can't win them all.

[iBandwagon]

Anyone with education would know that you cant use hypotheticals to prove your point. By using that, you re showing your opponent that you dont have any good point to make and that you have lost.

Please tell me what class teaches this.

[diamenz]

shut up, silkk.

[20Four]

Silk....always so negative....has your whole life been negative? Are you tired of flipping burgers and sleeping at the local park? You really come off as a negative B|tch who never accomplished your goals in life...keep flipping burgers silk :roll:

[Fudge]

livinglegend continuously getting his thread shut down. :oldlol:

Worst poster on this board by far. That's saying a lot, with retards like robert shaww, kingwillball, and those other helmet-wearing LeBron stans on the loose.

[Rodmantheman]

livinglegend continuously getting his thread shut down. :oldlol:

Worst poster on this board by far. That's saying a lot, with retards like robert shaww, kingwillball, and those other helmet-wearing LeBron stans on the loose.

OKC stans

http://randomoverload.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/a7f1a4e0recoil-fail.gif

[Fudge]

OKC stans

http://randomoverload.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/a7f1a4e0recoil-fail.gif
Was this supposed to be funny? or nahhhh?

[ArbitraryWater]

If you are going to compare players...you have to, on some level, create hypotheticals...

Especially when so much importance is put on winning/rings...

It is absolutely absurd to compare Duncan and KG in terms of their careers without mentioning the absurdly different circumstances between the Spurs and Wolves

It is the basis of debate, argument, and discussion...

If we didn't talk about hypotheticals in some form or another...then there would be no debate...

But I've always actually been for discussing things that actually happen on the court and valuing how well a player plays above all, but the truth is very few do that.

For example, nobody is going to care ultimately that Durant had a stretch in round 1 that was utter dog shit...why? Because his team won. Yet if you actually compared that to other players in certain situations...Durant simply was just as bad, if not worse.

He got the biggest bailout game a superstar has ever gotten arguably in game 4.

So because Reggie Jackson went nuts...that makes his series better than Kobe's 04 finals or Dirk's 07 playoffs...etc?

Well, perhaps, but without talking about hypothetical situations...it's pretty unfair. And that is the problem without using them on some level...you just give too many teams/players passes for playing like shit in key moments/series when competition level and help aren't ever factored in.

Like...we really have to ignore that the Heat are playing cupcake after cupcake in the East the last 3 years now? Come on...


I can only agree with this... If we compare all time greats, we GOT to include some hypotheticals... variables play a role. I mean, we cant punish bird to have less rings than kobe... the only reason to have bird higher, is to know, that if he was in the same situation as kobe was, hed win even more... this was just an example.

[Rodmantheman]

Was this supposed to be funny? or nahhhh?

http://slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/thunder_fan.jpg

[Fudge]

http://slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/thunder_fan.jpg
Best fans in sports.

:bowdown: